Evil Following 29er sm/blk frame, fork, dropper, brakes - $3500

==============================

*** GONE ***

==============================



Evil Following, 29er, small, black
'15 Fox 36 RC2, 130mm
RockShox Reverb Stealth 125mm/420mm 30.9 (w/connectamajig, I think)
Shimano XTR Trail brakes, fresh G01A brake pads
Includes Evil seat collar, top cap, FD cover, FSA headset, Shimano rear thru-axle, and Jagwire LEX S3 housing. Maybe the Shimano BB (94-41A) too.

$3500. Frame, fork, and dropper have 3 rides, about 65 miles. Brakes were pulled off another bike, but feel mint. Shouldn't be any scratches, scuffs, or dings on any of the parts.

Other parts not included for above price. Willing to part with complete bike for $5000 as pictured (Haven carbon wheels, XTR shifter, RD, crank, etc., with bundle discount, but note the parts aren't as new as the frame/fork/post). Will treat the bike as a part out for the most part. You're welcome to pick from my spare parts to fill it out.

Pretty convinced the bike isn't for me. The steerer (10mm extra length), cables and hoses are sized specifically for this frame, so I'm selling them as a set.

My legs are a bit too long to fit the frame well, due to the slacker seat angle at my seat height.

==============================

*** GONE ***

==============================

 

Sorry to hear about/see this without ever even seeing or reading a ride impression. I guess this says it all. I know you know enough about body positioning to have tried whatever adjustments might have provided relief to your knees. From the photo, it looks like your knees would be well ahead of your hips while seated, making it feel more like an Electra Townie than a mt. bike. Strange, since the current trend is put the saddle closer to the axis of the pedals (74* effective seat tube angles rather than the old 70-71* range).

It's too bad you couldn't have demo'd the bike first. I think there are a lot of folks who read the reviews on The Following and took the leap of faith without being able to demo one. Sorry it didn't work out for you.

 

Unless it is now "Old School" thinking (and I have been schooled many times with new stuff), I still stick to the old rule of thumb for seat to pedal relationship. 1) First to set the seat height to obtain proper leg extension WITHOUT over extending. Hips should not bob on full pedal rotation. 2) Second, the plumb bob on a string theory of draping the string over the front of the knee with the crank arm at 3 O'clock and foot engaged in pedal, and to have the Plumb Bob hit dead center of the pedal spindle. It's saved my knees for 23 years...
...Was really looking forward to the "Varaxis Report" ...

 

Yes but...

What can you really do to adjust for this? Crank arm length (of which there are serious repercussions for changing) or seat alignment over the seat post. That seat post angle on this frame is raked really far back. The taller you are for the frame, the more you will need to push that seat forward. Because of the seat post angle, the "sweet spot" is much smaller than a bike that has a more vertical seat post.

Everyone is different, and that includes body geometry like torso length, arm length, leg length, etc. But all things considered equal, I consider frames with raked seat posts to be hit or miss... they either fit you perfectly, or they will never fit you.

 

w

This is all very true. It comes down to a bike manufacturer making bikes function over fashion. I have always been function over fashion.

 

Yes.....we've seen it. I kid I kid.

 

Agree with Bonsai. The 74* is a mythical number , wherever they want to put the "X" to make the numbers look good. Few actual riders will hit that spot.
Learned that a long time back with my Knolly Endo. The higher I made the seat, the further back it moved because of "actual" seat tube angle.
Look at the older frames with straight seat tubes to see what steeper ST angles really look like. SC Blur 4X or ThePath version of Ventana El Ciclon.
Or compare the HA to STA, if they look the same, the real STA is probably closer to 67* or whatever.
Thats one reason I ride a L frame over M if I'm in between sizes. I can run less seatpost and have the seat closer to the 'magic" spot.
I do slam my seat way fwd, measuring the same way Mikie does. Some think it looks funny, but it works for me.
And they wouldnt have made the seat rails that long if it wasnt supposed to used, right?

 

Yea. The slack seat tube was what I figured was the issue. This "effective seat angle" is a troublesome figure. They advised me to size down, but my seatpost is up there making it feel slacker. This happens when you don't get a demo. You pretty much guessed it all.

I actually haven't tried sticking an offset post, run rotated 180. I have a Command Post IR that I can do that with. Going with a shorter crankarm would raise the saddle even more, and that just wouldn't work with a seat tube that's actually *slacker* than its already slack head angle (which is 67.4d). The forward offset on the seat tube makes the effective angle a bit steeper, depending on the height of the seat. No clue where they measured to, but it feels more slack than if they calculated the 72.7 effective SA horizontally from the top of the head tube.

 

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. At 6' I am also often between sizes. My last bike was a medium frame with a raked seat post. By the time I had the seat at the proper riding height, it was so far back that I could feel it in my weight balance over the wheels - on steep climbs I felt like I was about to go over backwards unless I really slid forward on the seat. So then you adjust the seat forward, and you hope there is still enough room in the cockpit that you don't have to buy a longer stem...

And by the way, a raked seatpost will also play havoc with you if you drop your seat a lot, or have a dropper post, because not only are you dropping your seat, you are moving it FORWARD a couple of inches. Maybe not what you want on a long downhill...

 

I can't see the stem length in your photo, but if you have a short stem, you can always try moving the seat forward 1.5" and getting a stem that is 1.5" longer. You would basically be shifting your entire riding position forward 1.5" over the cranks...

 

With that much seatpost showing, it would be my guess you should be on a bigger frame. (or a Tallboy LTc )

 

Stem's a 60mm. I'm 5' 7". I'm usually a Med/17", but in between sizes for some brands, like Yeti and Niner. The knee pain I get is below the knee cap, flanking each side in the hollows, associated with the tendon connecting the knee to the shin, nicknamed "jumper's knee". Unsurprisingly, the athletes affected by it tend to be loading their knees by pushing off into the air with the leading foot far ahead of their hips. So seated position combined with 1x10, and long climbs and wanting to push a faster pace over relatively high mileage = aching knees. All makes sense.

 

Knolly gambles on the Effective Seat Tube position as well. The actual seat tube is very slack so that they can keep a straight seat tube AND so they can maintain clearance as the tire approaches the seat tube upon compression of the suspension. Thus frame size matters a lot with a Knolly. The higher the saddle, the farther back it goes - lengthening the ETT, but slacking the pedal-to-hip measurement. Luckily, the XL works perfectly for me - on the Endorphin. The Podium XL has nowhere near long-enough ETT for me, but I rarely sit when aboard the beast, so it doesn't matter much.

BTW, the saddle going forward as you drop it is a good thing. You can still use it to help steer, but it's even more out of the way.

 

Sorry this bike didn't work out for you Varaxis. I've been waiting to read a Varaxis review of this bike cause I knew he would tell it like it is. This bike has seriously been on my radar for a while (Voodoo Tom should be riding something Evil right?). Everyone on other sites raves about how great this bike pedals but everyone who has chimed in on this site has opened my eyes to the fact that I would absolutely have to demo this bike before taking the plunge especially since I have a prior serious knee injury that I don't even think about on my current bike. For the right sized guy this is a smoking deal though.

 

I took measurements from my crappy image, that wasn't a perfect side profile nor level, but since taking an angle of the fork managed to measure out to be consistently around 67 (last measurement 67.775d, basically going straight through the damper cart), I figured it would at least show how much steeper or slacker the other angles were in relation.



I measured the actual angle of the seat tube (orange line) to be 63.273
- the effective angle of the seat tube (red line) measured out to be 70.984
- the effective angle of the seat tube, if measured to the upper bushing of the dropper, is 74.132

So Evil didn't measure effective angle at the top of the seat tube. Probably measured at a height level to where the steerer contacts the top headset bearing. I honestly expected steeper measurements...

A 71d seat angle may not seem *that* bad, if you reason that you see some bikes that ride okay with 72-73d seat angles, but that can push the seat back by over and inch. Could be the reason why the steep SA trend isn't going to 75-76 or steeper.

I looked at other images and the actual seat tube undoubtedly looks slacker than the head angle by a few degrees. Draw a line down from the seat clamps straight down, and it's practically halfway between the crank and rear axle. No other modern trail bike has you that far back.

Doesn't seem that far fetched, since Trek fully discloses that the actual seat angle is pretty slack on their geo/fit/sizing charts (66.5 or 67.1 for the Slash). Makes me appreciate things like Canyon's fit finder app, to ensure a leggy person would fit on a certain bike.

While seated, since the hips are so far back and the feet don't go under the hips as much, it feels like my "gait" has gone from running to power-walking, since I can't get the "toe flick" muscles to work, where I would normally push my body forward on my forefoot as my leg straighten out under my hips. Gotta run my seat lower to get a steeper seat angle, but my legs aren't even stretched at the current height... perhaps time to try an offset seatpost set to forward.

 

I guess the Following is made for a girl.....

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/evil-the-following-my-ride-brittney-white-2015.html

 

I'm jealous. Her seatpost collar is slammed against the clamp, and I didn't notice any hill climbing in the vid. I think it's a medium too, due to the size of the opening in that top tube split. I wonder if things would be diff if I got the Med instead.

 

Like you said, it's too bad you couldn't find one to demo....

Hey and for the record, she threw in a couple pedal strokes in the beginning.

 

Actually, I think I was offered to demo the Med by Craig, but for some reason I was set on getting a small.

Yep, here's the post: http://www.imtbtrails.com/forum/threads/evil-duo-spotted.2595/#post-19123

He said he and his brother were 5' 9 and 5' 10, and I replied I was 5' 7" and could fit, but wanted something smaller than my E29 since the E29 felt too big (mainly the tall front end, and general bulk).

 

I'm not sure if I believe all those measured angles matter...
You require only 3 points to meet up for your body config:

• Saddle
• Handlebars
• Pedals

If they meet your fit who cares where they come from. Only that they arrive.
Now if a dropped Saddle point is a concern, then angle matters for your seat tube. But herz stated (and I agree) a slacker seat tub angle only gets the seat more out of the way on a descent.

 

Unfortunately, my body has not adapted to such pedaling ergonomics with the pedals significantly ahead of the knee, so I wish to find something that better suits me so I can also cruise up climbs faster than 4 mph, else I can turn my bike into a recumbent or start training on one of these to build up the necessary muscles :



Seat angles are a curious business. With an angle like 73d, with every 1" of seat extension, the pedals become 0.28" further away. That's disproportionate to how a leg grows. If your leg gets 1" longer, does its femur only get 0.28" longer, considering it accounts for about 50% of the leg's length? 66d is close, but a bit over, at 0.41" inches for every inch, considering your femur shouldn't be at a 90d angle when pedaling. Could be why tall people use offset posts. All I know is, seat angle issues so bad that I joke about "knee over BB spindle" are pretty evil to my knees.

 

Safe to say that a medium will not solve the issue unless they have altered the seat tube angle on the larger frames. That said, it appears that Evil is more focused on a cool design in appearance, and less concerned about rider adaptability based on extreme tube angles.

...And isn't that how evil works? Enticing, but in the long run . . . Just not satisfying?

 

I think I like the pink pedals the most.

 

I respectfully disagree. I don't think Evil's primary focus is appearance. I think DW's DELTA system, as complicated as it looks, must be friggin' awesome to gain so many accolades from people I trust. The problem with Evil is there are no demo bikes - and you MUST demo this bike to get your sizing right.

I do agree with you on rider adaptability. Once you go with extreme seat tube angles, you do seriously limit the versatility of a given size frame.

 

I'm only focused on rider fit. How the bike performs is a completely different subject. The acute angles have a visual appeal to them but they do not lend to rider adjustability for the masses. It's possible that a medium might fit Dan better as the frame size will allow the seat post to be shorter and thus move the seat forward to obtain that 3 O'Clock pedal reach that saves his knees. I think that rider fit should be a companies first priority.

 

Decided to have a look at overlaid photos, Spec Enduro 29 with the Evil Following on top and made partially transparent. Used the stock photo off Spec's site and tried to scale them to be the same size. Front and rear axle level, of course.



Not lined up perfectly since I tried to match it at the BB, and they have diff BB heights. The Enduro is a large, judging by the space between the top tube and seat tube gusset (and how the seat tube is over the rear wheel). I think it's pretty accurate still (the Evil has 165mm cranks).

Noticed from that pinkbike vid that the sponsored Evil girl had her saddle slammed forward. More evidence of slack seat angle. Looks pretty close with my saddle slammed forward. Going to drop the fork travel from 130mm to 120mm on the Evil and see how that goes. Not surprised that an inch makes that much of a noticeable difference, considering how some people are picky over 5mm here and there.

One difference between a small and med would presumably be that the seat tube goes higher before it kinks to the slack seat angle.

Riding the Spec today at night, without a light, I really felt compatible with the pedaling ergonomics. Props to Spec for nailing it. A bike doesn't have to suck at climbing, to be good at fast descending and what not.

 

Can you do the same exercise with a TB LTc? I'm curious to see what that would like.

Big Fanboy, but for good reason. I think (and many others do too) that SC nailed the ergos on their 29er.

I'm speculating, but I'll bet the new LTc when it hist in Q1 will have the new VPP treatment the Bronson and 5010 got.

 

Overlaid a LTc (not sure what size), lining up the rear wheels, with a decent photo of a med or large Following.



Note that since I aligned the rear wheel, the BB spindle on the Evil is about 20mm behind the SC's, so the saddle being 20mm behind the SC's should be expected.

 

The TB will certainly put you in a more upright peddling position.

 

Quick review of the Following -

It seems to be a BMX/pump track/slalom rider's 29er. It prefer flow trails, or trails close to home with "technical challenges", as opposed to exploring mountain ranges and riding epics. The differences can be summed up as "trail bike" vs "mountain bike" when comparing it to my Spec Enduro 29. It likes to rack up air time, drift time, sideways time, and screams/hollers/maniacal laughs, as opposed to racking up miles, elevation, and mere smiles. The Following just doesn't like to go slow. I made it a point to not seek out climbs on it, and just try and get faster and faster on certain sections. It's a natural on jumps, getting air off of any sudden grade reversal if you have speed. It doesn't seem to be a quiver-killer bike, in my eyes, as I found myself riding my other bikes every other outing to mix things up. Stick grippy tires on it and big brake rotors on it and just ride it wide open like Remy Metailler.

Pedaling and climbing efficiency are okay by modern standards, but I've been spoiled by other bikes such as the Ripley and Yeti SB bikes. Even my Spec E29 and SJ FSR EVO 26 will pedal more comfortably and get better times up the hills, even inspiring me to rock the bike side-to-side hammering up. The Evil definitely bobs out of the saddle, though it doesn't help that the fork is doing part of the squishing. On technical climbs, the slower you go, the worse it behaves--if you stall and try and brute force your way up, your core/upper body will have a huge challenge of keeping the front under control, else it will just wander or flop like a fish out of water. Rear wheel traction is pretty good while seated, able stick to the ground going up steps as long as you put out even power (requires pretty low gearing, and I'm on 1x10) and have a handle on the front's tendency to wander. I kind of used my singlespeeding habits to pedal through things that I might have coasted through, in order to maintain momentum, and this helped offset the slow speed handling while taking advantage of the rear suspension.

The fine riding characteristics of the bike boils down to its low CoG. From leaning hard when carving a 90d or sharper corner, to popping up off of the ground and stabilizing in the air, the low CoG plays a huge role in defining the bike's ride. Combined with the new school geo (minus the slack seat angle), the bike seems to stand out as the most innovative trail 29er I've ridden so far. There are others that copy its geo, like the 429Trail, SB45c, Ripley LS, but none copy its low CoG. Perhaps GT might challenge with their design, if they update their geo. As far as being capable, it really wasn't impressive, coming off an E29. It jumps and carves better, but there aren't a lot of corners that have insides that are free from brush or other obstacles (boulders/trees) that allow you to lean, and it doesn't have the planted high speed stability that made my E29 so confident downhill. This bike requires the rider to be skilled to go fast, rather than handling the trail for the rider to allow them to go fast, riding more like a dirt jump bike than a DH bike. A more capable bike, such as a Yeti SB6c, made me feel like the trail was a joke and had me looking for lines in the raw that don't yet exist that go into rock croppings; the Evil didn't give any such vibes, instead making me look at ways to carry speed, get air, and get sideways, launching itself using irregularities on the existing trail. Trying to blast through rock gardens and rutted descents covered in braking bumps, it kind of bounced through no better than my SJ FSR Evo, but better than my HTs, and the Strava times supported that feeling. With a different shock tune, the bike can change its attitude, but there's not really anything much better than that Monarch RT3 Debonair that fits on it, so it's off to a professional tuner for revalving or a whole new damping circuit, if one really wanted a different feel, perhaps a more planted and secure feel as opposed to one that wants to leave the ground.

Ownership experience so far is not positive. They can't seem to keep these things in stock, so getting issues handled where your frame has an issue where they decide a new frame is best can take a month or more. The paint is very fragile, and bits of carbon can be found chipping away such as where the bottom shock mount bolt threads into the frame tabs. I don't see helicoil threads, which can prove to be a longevity issue, and the aluminum alloy bolts they use throughout doesn't seem to scream longevity either. Looking inside at the carbon molding of the frame, it doesn't look like it's top quality at all. Perhaps on Spec's level on resin and folds/wrinkles, or worse, as I've seen far better, but serviceable and since it weighs about 6.5 lbs out of the box, its mass gives me confidence in its strength. Putting it together, I ran into a few minor issues: took 30+ minutes to route the Reverb stealth cable, to get it past the BB bend despite the sheath, I had to cut and bleed the rear brake line since it's such a short and direct route, and the first PF92 BB didn't go in as smoothly as expected despite using shop quality tools, groaning on the way in, while a second BB (both Shimano) went in far smoother and spins freer. During setup, I noticed the cable sheath for the stealth dropper routing prevented my 420mm post from going down too deep; probably would've been wise to trim it. I didn't try to install a FD, but not really sure how that works, maybe just putting a housing through without a ferrule until it stops, and guiding the cable through, and *hope* it pops out that tiny pin hole just above the BB that would lead to a bottom pull DM FD. I don't seem to notice any cable rattling from the internal routing, and no rubbing from well-sized cables/lines. Setting up sag not too bad, relying on the gradient markers on the shock and the o-ring, but it's a pain to clean that rear shock cubby--especially trying to wipe the crud off of the shock's slider to prevent it from going into the air can. Can barely fit a gloved hand in there, let alone hold a thin microfiber towel to try and wipe.

Other notes: noticed that other Following owners posted pics of the rear tire hitting the seat tube, so tire clearance with the tire spinning and covered in slop could be questionable. To get my seat angle steep enough to pedal without knee pain, I had to lower the fork to 120mm, slam my saddle forward on a zero-offset seatpost, and go with 165mm cranks. 165mm turned out to be an interesting upgrade that I might do on my other bikes, to allow for a lower BB, as I'm warming up to low CoG bikes. BBs 13" or under on a 5" travel bike? Bring it! I'm actually riding in the high setting, just to get a more centered/less rearward pedaling position. One last note is that the bolts that hold the geo adjust chips seem to be sensitive to torque and some owners discovered the hard way, replacing them with chainring bolts as it seemed to fit and was much cheaper than what Evil was asking for to get OE bolts. The early gen bikes had issues with a crappy rear axle, but newer ones ship with a Shimano one that has its nut loosely held in its socket by a set screw; seeing how you have to hold and press it against the frame for the skewer's threads to catch it, and how there's not full thread engagement, it's like it was an afterthought in design.

Bottom line: The Following is like the spoiled offspring of a low CoG DH bike (Devinci Wilson) that loves flow trails (jump lines, berms) and speed, throwing a tantrum if you go slow, and reluctantly doing long distance and elevation. It is moody and will have its way or it will make you miserable. It is an attention whore and loves getting compliments and questions from others, but won't appreciate it if you tell others about its bad habits (see mtbr Evil forum, where they're drunk on Kool-Aid and reject all criticism, ganging up to insult you to defend their baby, if you say things like the Ripley climbs better and its seat angle is too slack). It seems to be always up for some racing and chasing if in a group ride, even if the group ride started out as a casual-paced one.

Honestly, as it is now, I don't mind if it stays in my quiver, as I will ride it, but I won't miss it if it goes either, as it's not exactly my style and the fit is a bit off. I should've got a medium.